Tag Archives: COVID-19

Company with notorious past targets employee

Considering everything that we have already heard about the trucking industry, it should come as no surprise that we are targeting a specific trucking company. Because the individual who contacted us is currently employed, we have taken precautions to keep their identity anonymous. With that out of the way, let’s dive in.

John Christner Trucking, LLC. is a company based out of Sapulpa, Oklahoma. Although it is a fairly small company, they are no stranger to abusing their drivers, leaving them just enough money to buy food each week. Aside from extreme low pay the company provides, it has also seen its fair share of lawsuits. In the past three years alone, John Christner has seen nearly a dozen legal actions against it. Before we get into the most recent whistleblower, let’s review some of these lawsuits.

Feb 2020

In February of last year, JCT found itself in the middle of a “misclassification” lawsuit. This case stemmed from more than 3k California based drivers who made multiple accusations against the company. Among the accusations: Working 70-100 hours a week while making less than $500, drivers owing the company money, and violating multiple state and federal labor laws by classifying drivers as “independent contractors” rather than employees. This wasn’t the only lawsuit JCT was faced with.

Mousavi v. John Christner Trucking

In what has to be the most controversial case, among it’s countless others, is this one. On 04-19-2019,  Iranian American, Kazem Mousavi filed a discrimination suit against JCT. In the complaint, he alleged that the company had placed a “in-cab” camera system in his truck, without his consent. He noted that his vehicle was the only one to receive this system. While the company assured him that the camera would only be used in emergency situations, that apparently was not the case.

According to Mousavi, when arriving at the terminal, individuals working in the JCT office made comments regarding his conversations via the phone. In one instance, he was informed that they enjoyed hearing him speak Iranian. All of this, if accurate, would had been a violation of multiple privacy laws. In order to have these cameras inside a truck, the driver must sign a consent form to being recorded. If he had not signed any such form, JCT could had gotten more than a lawsuit. If you wish to read the case in its entirety, you may do so at this link.

The whistleblower that we have been talking to, has made multiple accusations against this company. According to him, they are using threat of income as a means of forcing him into a medical test, one that would violate his religious beliefs. Although he has made this very clear to the company on multiple occasions, they still bring it up. Utilizing his legal rights, he informs our platform that he went for a second opinion, which the company than proceeded to deny accepting the two year medical card. Their reason? They didn’t like the field of practice the doctor was trained in. As with so many other drivers, who have filed lawsuits against JCT, he stated that he drove 3k miles, only to receive a paycheck that wasn’t even $400. He than proceeded to show us his check stub, proving this claim.

We mentioned that he was being pressured into a medical test. Let’s dive a bit more into that. In the trucking industry, there are doctors who try to force drivers into a sleep study; this test is not a federally required test for drivers. Furthermore, it is a test that the driver has to pay out of pocket for. Due to religious beliefs, which prohibit our whistleblower from being connected to machines that may alter/change his life, he opted for a second opinion. During the entire process, he states the company did everything in its power to force the sleep study. When he got the second opinion, they simply refused to accept it, effectively shutting down his source of income until he complied.  So, what is religious discrimination?

The U.S Equal Employment Opportunity Commission  defines religious discrimination as:

Religious discrimination involves treating a person (an applicant or employee) unfavorably because of his or her religious beliefs. The law protects not only people who belong to traditional, organized religions, such as Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, and Judaism, but also others who have sincerely held religious, ethical or moral beliefs.

Under this act, they require companies to make reasonable accommodations to their employees, if their religious beliefs prohibit certain things. In this instance, in our opinion, JCT not only failed to do so, they took the extra initiative in preventing the employee from obtaining an income, resulting in his soon to be resignation.

Behavior like this, regardless of the industry or company, is absolutely atrocious. To treat any person in the manner to which this company’s history implicates is enough that they should had been investigated ages ago. However, like most companies within the trucking industry, there is simply no accountability. Thankfully, our platform has branched out into the business review world. With that, we will happily bring accountability when and where it is owed.

Hotel willfully endangers customer lives

When customers check into a hotel, they have the expectation that the rooms are going to be safe. For customers who dare to visit the ‘Executive Inn,’ located at 2323 Boren Blvd, Seminole, Ok, checking in is literally placing your life in immediate danger. The hotel, from our investigation, is infested with roaches. However, the roaches are the least of your concerns. Black Mold, which is known to be lethal, is rampant within the rooms. How can this situation become worst? The hotel knows about it but continues to check customers into these rooms.

One individual, who wishes to be identified as J.S., recently visited the state for a wedding. After spending many hours aboard a train, he was looking forward to having an actual bed. However, this simple desire ended with him being rushed to the local emergency room. We met up with J.S. as he was getting his belongings and leaving the hotel. When entering his room, we were appalled, and sickened, by the site. Black Mold had covered multiple areas of the room, more than an inch of water had seeped through the carpet and surrounding floor. The most shocking of all was the mushrooms growing near the bed, located to where it would be located out of the sight of most customers.

We had also made contact with a woman, identified as R.D. She had informed us that she too had become very sick after staying at this hotel. Like the room of J.S., her room was infested with roaches and black mold.  But it doesn’t end there. Google holds many reviews from customers warning of the conditions of this hotel. So, doing what we do best, being that we were on site, we went to the hotel staff to get answers.

The hotel staff not only made it obvious that they did not care, they went as far as to admit that they were fully aware of the black mold. They knew that these rooms were a death sentence waiting to happen and yet they did nothing to resolve the problem. Armed with photographs I did the only humane thing possible: I made a claim to the State health department (we will post updates to this article.)

Negligence of this kind is something I have never witnessed before. The fact that the hotel is not only fully aware of this problem, but choose to continue placing customers into a situation that may very well kill them, is absolutely inexcusable. Until the legal process is complete, hopefully with their closure, it is important that the word get out; people need to be aware of what danger they are in while staying at this location. We have included some of our photographs below.

 

Water rises from the floor, simply from stepping down.

 

Potential black mold, located in the restroom.

The stem of one of several mushrooms we located within the room.

American trucking company forces woman to suffer?

We all know the importance of the commercial drivers who traverse our highways. These men and women sacrifice weeks of their lives, living on the road, to deliver the products that we all use on a daily basis, without these brave individuals, our country would simply come to an abrupt halt. However, as we have reported before, the industry is riddled with flaws, corruption, and complete disregard for these individuals. If you are curious as to the source of all of this, you only need to look as far as the companies themselves. With that in mind, this brings us to a disturbing story that we have been made aware of. This story derives the transportation carrier, ‘Hirschbach Motor lines.’

Events unfolding

Recently, a serious winter storm struck most of the Midwest. Parts of the country, such as Oklahoma, Texas, and Louisiana to name a few, were at a complete disadvantage as they desperately attempted to ward off the ice and snow, which had accumulated on the roads. Meanwhile, in Denton TX., a driver and his fiancé were walking into a truck stop for food. This mere decision would become the start of a dispute that would last hours.

They returned to the semi with little issue. However, as the young woman began to climb up its steps, she suddenly slipped, falling to the ground, and ultimately breaking her arm. Multiple drivers attempted to assist the young woman, including her soon-to-be husband, eventually getting her safely into the vehicle. As per the company’s policy, the driver called to report the incident, citing that she was in immediate need of emergency assistance. The company disregarded this. As he continued to fight with company, the driver began utilizing what medical training he had in hopes of easing her pain.

The feud

The driver continued his contact with the dispatch department, only to be given answers that, according to the young woman, were impossible. He was given suggestions such as:

  1. Taking the entire truck and trailer to the hospital. We are told this was impossible simply because both vehicle and trailer could not fit into the parking lot.
  2. Call Uber or a taxi. This was impossible due to the winter storm, they simply weren’t operating their cabs or Ubers.
  3. Drop the trailer. While this was a feasible solution, the company refused to give the driver a drop location. Dropping the trailer without their consent could had potentially cost him a job or been deemed as an abandonment by the company, which we are told is a career ending accusation.

In the end, it would be more than twenty-four hours before the young woman would get to a medical professional. Not only is this a complete disregard for human life, which is apparently a common theme within companies, it’s illegal.

Synopsis

The facts here should be rather apparent. The situation involves a young woman, riding a commercial vehicle that is owned by the company. She has a misfortunate event that leads to a broken arm. The company, at this point, has a legal responsibility: they must get her medical treatment within a timely fashion. In not doing so, the company put her at risk of contracting an infection known as ‘osteomyelitis.’ This is an infection of the bone. Though uncommon, it can become a life-threatening situation.

Furthermore, the carrier allowed her to be on the semi, documents submitted to us further confirm that the company was fully aware of the fact that she was authorized to be present, this only furthers the company’s liability in this situation. By doing nothing, providing the driver with no plausible solution for getting her medical treatment, the company has only successfully created a potential act of litigation, one to which they could not possibly win.

From the editor

If you value what ‘War on Corruption, LLC’ is doing, please consider subscribing to us. There are a variety of ways in doing so.

  1. You can join our Gold status, right here on our website.
  2.  You can join our Patreon here!
  3. Follow us on Twitter: @WoCPlatform
  4. Follow us on Youtube here.
  5. Or simply share our articles. It will be a great support and much appreciated.

What comes next?

Since last October, our team has had many discussions about this very article. We all knew that it would happen, it was simply unavoidable. This article is not only exposing the legal violations, policy violations, and abuse from Facebook, this article is serving as a testament of the results from these abuses. While we have written articles previously discussing what was being done to our team, it was agreed that we needed to write the conclusion to those articles.

If you followed us on Facebook, you already know what the results were. If you’ve been following, in general, you already know what has been occurring. However, if you aren’t aware, let’s start by giving you a quick rundown to get you up to speed on things.

In September, Facebook had done an unknown action that prevented our bot from automatically posting our articles to our Facebook page, this began shortly before the other events, which will be discussed shortly, began. It took us a few weeks to even notice that this had happened. While our website showed that Facebook was connected, Twitter was connected, and so fourth, the posts simply were not going up on Facebook. After attempting to resolve this issue, with no success, we began manually posting the articles.

Though this was rather annoying, we did what had to be done. For a few weeks things were fine; this changed around October 20th. One by one, admins of the WoC page were being completely blocked out of their profiles. They were unable to comment, like, post, share, etc. However, they were able to send instant messages. In total, five of the seven admins were completely blocked from doing anything on their accounts. Facebook offered no explanation, no resolution, not even a policy that was violated. We began sending daily disputes, though Facebook blocked us from doing this as well. Finally, out of desperation, I personally began sending messages to them via the “feedback” feature. After doing this for about a week, that too was blocked.

These blocks lasted until December 19th. The entire time, we could do nothing aside watch as the platform suffered from our lack of activity. During this time, the admin who had not been affected, took control of the platform. Finally, when we were unblocked, it was decided that we would tread cautiously; this did not work.

On December 25th, I got online to four messages. Once again, the admin were blocked on Facebook. I immediately checked my profile to find that, like last time, it was also blocked. This block lasts for thirty days. As with the previous block, we have no ability to contest it. In fact, looking into the “violations” section, shows nothing. Essentially, as far as Facebook is concerned, we aren’t blocked. Though I have, once again, begun sending feedback to the site, that has now also been blocked. With this, our team had a difficult choice to make. Do we continue operating on what is clearly a site that willfully violates constitutional rights, or do we shutdown?

With much discussion, we removed the platform from the public eye, we unpublished the page. While this was a move that none of us had wanted, there simply was no alternative action. Facebook has made it abundantly clear that we are being targeted, a violation of their harassment policy, in fact. Extending beyond that, it contradicts the very words of Mark Zuckerberg, who had stated that Facebook would not censor free speech. With the removal of our Facebook page, we effectively lost more than 97% of our followers. If you aren’t aware of what this means, it means War on Corruption is on a path toward shutting its doors, or the difficult path of having to rebuild the entire platform; at this time, we are still discussing our future.

Meanwhile, Facebook is not held accountable. We aren’t the first platform to be censored out in this way. CopBlock, Freedom Thought Project, and many others have been targeted by the social media giant. Around 2018, we witnessed what many called the “Facebook purge.” During this time dozens of independent media platforms were simply shutdown by Facebook. No explanation, no reason, not even an email explaining why. Thankfully, many of these platforms recovered. Hopefully, with time, we shall too.

Are retailers violating the HIPAA ACT?

With the COVID situation running rampant, it shouldn’t be a surprise that your medical information is now being forced to be presented to employers. Failing to do so is met with consequences, loss of employment, or even suspension without pay. However, some employers, such as Dollar Tree, have taken this a step further. They not only ask for your medical information, they are accused of asking for information pertaining to related to the employee. With this accusation, a member of our team applied, got the job, and tested this theory out. This article is going to present information provided to us by a former employee and the results of what we learned first hand.

HIPAA

The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability (HIPAA) Act was designed in 1996 with the purpose of protecting sensitive medical information. With this act, doctors are forbidden from divulging information of any patient without having prior written consent. However, the act expands beyond that aspect. With the HIPAA Act, patients have control of their medical information, they can choose who to provide this information to, and it limits what medical information an employer can obtain; this last portion is where our article is primarily focused.

While this act doesn’t necessarily pertain to employers, there are aspects of it that do. For instance, under the HIPPA Act, an employee is not required to divulge their medical files, or even diagnosis and treatment. While we are currently in a pandemic, this changes nothing as the HIPPA Act simply does not address situations such as this. An employer asking an employee the results of a Covid test could be taken as a violation as, once again, a patient is not required to give the employee their diagnosis or treatment information. This brings us to the retail industry, who seem to ask their employees for this very piece of vital information.

Retails intrusive questions

With the information we had obtained from a source, our platform decided to go “inside” and find out for ourselves. For this, a member of our team applied at a local “Dollar Tree.” This location was selected because it was the company that we had gotten the complaint about. Like magic, the application was approved and we had our feet in the door. At this point, the investigation commenced.

The first night was uneventful. No questions were asked, just the typical “pre-opening” work. Shelves were stocked, boxes were stored, that sort of thing. Our new insider had begun to question rather or not the accusations were, in fact, even true. After working for hours, we had initially thought the investigation was a fluke. This conclusion didn’t last long, however. Prior to the insider’s employment, we had already established that if they did ask any of the questions, they were to answer at least one of them with “yes.”

The reason behind this was simply to see what the store would do in this situation. We already had established that answering “no” gave you the “right” to work, we wanted the other end of the spectrum. On night two, our insider reports that they arrived at the store. Upon entering, they were immediately stopped and asked some questions. Because this was being recorded, we are providing the very questions that were asked. We are also providing the response given by our insider.

The questions

Q: Have you been around anybody who has tested positive for Covid?

A: If I had been, there is no way that I could possibly know, so I’m going to say no. It is important to note that the employer is marked with (Q) while our insider is marked with (A.)

Q: In the past 24 hours, have you been around anybody who has been tested for Covid?

A: Yes.

Q: Wait, you’ve been around somebody who got tested for Covid?

A: Yeah.

Q: Do you know the results of their tests? (Highlighted as this question potentially violates HIPPA.)

A: No, I don’t know their tests results. Why?

Q: Because that means you can’t come into work.

A: What do you mean I can’t come to work, why not?

Q: Because you’re putting the entire store at risk.

A: Uh, okay, that makes no sense but whatever.

It’s important to note a few things within these questions. The first is the redundancy of the first question. If this had not been our insider, but another employee, they would already be at a high risk of exposure, they’re working retail. The second thing to note is what HIPAA says about asking for test results: they aren’t permitted to know what a diagnosis or treatment is. If the test were to be a positive, the employer is not permitted to know this as the patient would be diagnosed with Covid. Branching beyond that, the employer is also not permitted to know what the treatment plan for the said diagnosis is. Essentially, asking this question is a legal situation in the making. With a good attorney, this company could face a rather hefty penalty.

While all of the questions are intrusive, the specific question asking for test results, especially regarding those not employed with the company, is the smoking gun for any “litigation-happy” disgruntled employee. Expanding beyond the questions, we are left with one unanswered question: why the inconsistency?  On the first night of employment, our insider received no questions prior to their shift. However, on the second night, they were questioned. If the employers policy regarding “safety” was so serious, wouldn’t they be asking these intrusive questions prior to every shift?

While this subject, especially now, remains highly controversial, it is one that should be discussed. The question asking, “how far is to far?” is simply not asked enough. In this year alone, we have seen some of the worst violations to our rights than at any point in America’s history. Our right to religious freedom being a primary example. During this time, we saw ministers being arrested simply for refusing to cease with the practice of their religious freedoms, in the way that their religions required. But the violations didn’t start, nor did they end, there. For now, we will simply ask this one question: Will Americans ever say “enough is enough?”

 

Editorial Statement

Due to the backlash on Twitter, we are clarifying that this article is purely opinion. We are asking a question, noted by the title, and are simply responding with our thoughts. While the companies may not be violating HIPAA, by requesting information of people, who are not employed with them, we can at least establish that the privacy of those individuals have been violated.

Injured employee mistreated?

Unless you’re completely out of your mind, the last thing in the world that you would want to do is injure yourself at work. With any sort of injury, there is a loss of income, dealing with legal things that you may not had expected, and the list goes on. This story is brought to us by an individual, who requested to remain anonymous out of fear of retaliation. Given what we’ve been informed, it seems he maybe a bit late on avoiding the said retaliation, however. Though this isn’t our typical style, we decided to cover this simply because as a platform, we will always stand against bullies, no matter the situation.

Express Personnel is a nationwide employment agency. While they typically assist the unemployed in getting “temp” jobs,  They don’t hide the fact that their employees are nothing more than “cash cows” for the agency, especially if you have gotten a workplace injury. This brings us to the ‘Express Personnel’ services of Seminole, Oklahoma. In specific, we are going to be discussing the manager of this branch and her apparent lack of professionalism. As of this time, we have reached out to this specific agency, inviting them to issue a comment. However, as the past has shown, we don’t really have high expectations of receiving one.

The employee, who made us aware of this situation, had just started working at a local production plant, producing food products. According to the individual, things were going great, until he had gotten injured halfway through his shift. The injury apparently occurred when the employee lifted a box, potentially turning wrong, leading to a muscle and tendon being strained in his lower back. Even with the said injury, he stated that he remained at his work station for an additional hour. However, the pain increasingly became unbearable, forcing him to leave.

The next day, the employee reported the injury to his employer, ‘Express Personnel.’ At this point, he mentioned that he was almost unable to walk. For this reason, he had utilized a cane. Calling the employer, they demanded that he drive to their office, he informed them of the severity of the pain. However, this is when he claims the first round of hostility began. From one of the audio files sent to us, they are heard saying, “well, you need to get up here as soon as possible, TODAY,” before abruptly ending the call. As demanded, the employee drove to the location. According to him, upon entering the building, he was immediately with unnecessary statements regarding his cane.

While at the location, the branch manager had him sign various papers. One containing a rather questionable question: “What could you have done differently to prevent this injury?” The problem with this question is that it’s what they define as a “loaded question.” Essentially, there is no means of answering this question without placing the complete blame onto the employee. Basically, this is a legal trick to removing any accountability from Express. Initially, the employee refused to answer the question, only to be met with more hostility. According to him, he even tried to advise them that he wasn’t certain as to how to answer the question. He informs us that the fact he knew what they were trying to do, was partly to blame for this. The branch manager, at this point allegedly replied with, “Well, you better figure it out because they’re going to ask you the same thing,” though she never specified as to who “they” are. After answering the question, under duress, he informs us that he went to their doctor.

Upon completing the doctor visit, the employee began his 20 mile trip back to Express. He informs us that he was required to return so that he can give them a copy of the paperwork, provided by the doctor. When arriving, he decided to begin recording. He says this was because of the previous hostility, he simply wanted evidence of it. Currently, our platform has this audio recording.  Upon listening to it, it’s not only apparent that this manager lacks any form of professionalism, she is outright bullying this employee. If you haven’t guessed, while he may not of had any form of legal action previously, he most certainly could have one on these grounds.

The one thing that really stood out, in this recording, was a statement made by the manager. “I’m going to be honest with you, I don’t care if you come to work or not, it’s less money that we have to spend.” I must ask the question: Is this Express Personnel’s policy regarding treatment of their employees? Is this their policy on how to treat an individual simply for having an accident at work? It would seem so. I turned to Google and began conducting some research. I wanted to confirm if this man could potentially have a case, not on his injury, but rather on how he has been treated as a result.

According to “injurycoach.com,” he very well may. The site reads as follows:

Most employers are immune to employee lawsuits due to a complicated web of workers’ compensation statutes protecting them. … If youve been injuredmistreated, or wrongfully fired from your jobyou may be well within your rights under state or federal laws to file a lawsuit against your employer.

Essentially, due to how the workers compensation laws are designed, the company can’t really be held financially liable for any injury, though he has already informed us that he was never intending for any of the post report events to occur. However, because they did mistreat him upon reporting the injury, he very well may have a case, depending on what the laws within his state say.

Nobody ever expects to be injured at their work. When these injuries do occur, the employee shouldn’t be treated as though they committed a crime, especially by their employer. Though this individual is still employed with them, he has made it abundantly clear that he has every intention of terminating that, once he is cleared for work. To that, we can only wish him good health and better employment.

Disabled individuals targeted?

It goes without say that we should all be entitled to medical care. For some people, this form of care means life or death. However, in all the splendor joys that 2020 has already provided us, we are finding that, for many people, medical care is outright being denied. In fact, for specific groups of people, they aren’t even being allowed in the door before being asked to leave the facility. Why? It all boils down to the mask mandate. I understand that many people will disagree with this article. I also understand that I will most likely catch a lot of grief for writing it, however, I simply refuse to sit back and watch as specific groups of disabled people continue to be targeted, denied their basic right to medical. After all, we have already seen other rights be stripped away, we’ll get into that also.

Mask Mandate

First, and foremost, it is important to understand that the mask mandate is that: a mandate. Although many people will try to claim this to be law, it’s not. The difference in a mandate and law comes down to a variety of factors, how it came to be is among them. While state and federal laws get run through every government house known to man, the mandate had never undergone such a process. Basically, this makes it unenforceable by law enforcement, though they are attempting to enforce it anyway. The issue in them enforcing it can be chalked down into what the very definition of their occupation: to uphold and enforce the law.

Initially, the mask mandate was a suggestion. Never intended to be required, the government composed a list of “safety” procedures for people to follow, if they so wished. However, what we ended up seeing completely opposed this initial stance. In a progressively slow measure, this request grew into the mandate. Some of the “safety” guidelines are as follow:

  1. Stay at least six feet apart from one another. Apparently, we are facing the only known virus in history that has a travel distance of six feet.
  2. Wear a mask. This is something we are going to really get into shortly.
  3. Avoid large crowds. Goes back to the whole six feet portion.

Enforcement vs. your rights

In enforcing this potential violation to the constitution, as well as civil liberties, we have seen the outright measures our very own government are willing to take. In the past several months, we have seen churches forced into closing their doors and their ministers arrested upon refusing to do so. If you aren’t well versed in the Constitution yet, let’s just recap, shall we?

Under the first amendment, you have the right to free speech, the press, religion, and so on. In regards to religion, the amendment states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” Hence where their idea of enforcement now becomes a problem.

By forcing religious institutions into closing their doors, they directly violated the first amendment. Regardless of the reason as to why this was done, it changes nothing in regards to the result. To take it further, those who refused to cease practicing within their religious institutions, were simply arrested. Never, in the history of the United States, has a minister been arrested for refusing to terminate their religious practices; of course, this is no longer a truthful statement.

Within the mask mandate, there are exemptions that must be noted. It is these exemptions that have lead to this article. The exemptions within themselves aren’t the problem, it’s how businesses treat individuals who are exempted that has become the problem.

  1. pre-existing respiratory conditions.
  2. seizures
  3. sensory disorders, such as those associated with autism.

The above are only a few examples of things that are exempted. Regardless of this, corporations, and even medical facilities, are making blanket policies that force everybody, exempted or not, to wear these masks. Furthermore, for those who are exempted, there doesn’t appear to be any form of help with fighting these illegal policies. So, let’s go ahead and arm our disabled friends with a few pieces of legal information that may be of assistance.

The ADA

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) is quickly becoming a critical law to know. Within this law, there are protections that could translate into the enforcement of these corporate policies, as well as the mandate itself though the mandate has exemptions for this very reason. The two titles that we are going to specifically focus on are II and III of the ADA.

Title II

“Title II applies to State and local government entities, and, in subtitle A, protects qualified individuals with disabilities from discrimination on the basis of disability in services, programs, and activities provided by State and local government entities. Title II extends the prohibition on discrimination established by section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, 29 U.S.C. 794, to all activities of State and local governments regardless of whether these entities receive Federal financial assistance.”

Title III

Title III focuses on private businesses (also known as public accommodations). All new construction and modifications must be accessible to individuals with disabilities. For existing facilities, barriers to services must be removed if it is readily achievable. Public accommodations include facilities such hotels, restaurants, bars, theaters, grocery stores, hardware stores, dry-cleaners, banks, professional offices of health care providers, lawyers, and accountants, hospitals, private bus or train stations, museums, libraries, zoos, amusement parks, places of education, day care centers, senior citizen centers, homeless shelters, gymnasiums, health spas, bowling alleys, and golf courses to name a few.

To read this in its entirety, please visit this link.

Essentially, these titles prevent corporations, etc. from denying disabled individuals services solely on the grounds of their disabilities. For those who are being denied, as we’ve recently seen, this act will quickly become your best friend in fighting these unjust policies.

The mandate has been met with such controversy that lawsuits are currently ongoing. States such as Ohio, Wisconsin, and Texas are just a few states to mention. Rather or not you are for, or against the mandate, one thing must be clear: For the disabled individuals who cannot wear such devices, life has become a much more difficult challenge than what was ever needed. Rather it requires a revocation, overhaul, or even clarification of the mandate, to resolve the issues that are apparently present, it is, without a doubt, that action must be taken.

COVID-19: Reality Check

For months now, we have seen abuse from the government unlike anything before. While most Americans are perfectly fine with the loss of their first, fourth, and even sixth amendment rights, some are beginning to wake up. As a result of this, social disobedience is quickly becoming a common trend. With so much confusion, who is in the right?

The introduction of COVID-19 introduced more than a new potential threat, it brought out mass fear and even hysteria. As the government began learning about the virus, they implimented some rather debatable “safety procedures.” Social distancing, masks, that sort of thing has now become common practice. However, many debate as to rather or not they went to far.

First amendment

Under the first amendment, all Americans are granted the freedom to practice their religions. What this means is the government has no legal grounds to interfere with this, or other, rights. However, since the COVID-19 situation began, we have seen that very ordeal unfold. In several cases, those who have dared to break the “law” of not going to church, were met with arrest. How is this possible? A simple loophole is all it takes, more on that later.

On social medias, such as Facebook and Youtube, those who are speaking out against the governments’ actions, are finding themselves censored, ability to post/comment blocked, or outright banned. In a controversial move, Facebook has gone as far as to form its own “Supreme court.” The intent of this is to determine what is, or is not, allowed on their site. However, this has lead to many conspiracy theories.

Fourth Amendment

Under the fourth amendment, all citizens have the right to be secure in their persons, homes, and property. At this point, we may as well just rule this one a dead right. Since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, we have seen what happens to those who dare to defy their government overlords. While initially, the “safety protocols” were mere suggestions, people have been brutally beaten and arrested by police. Their crime? Daring to run their businesses.

There are many articles discussing how the police have arrested business owners for literally committing no crime. By violating the “recomendations,” and being arrested for it, proves that these are not just suggestions. Furthermore, they demonstrate the more disturbing image at hand. It was Adolf Hitler who once said:

“The best way to take control over a people and control them utterly is to take a little of their freedom at a time, to erode rights by a thousand tiny and almost imperceptible reductions. In this way, the people will not see those rights and freedoms being removed until past the point at which these changes cannot be reversed.” For many, this is what’s happening. Of course, when it’s a $1000+ fine for not wearing a suggestion on your face, it does seem plausible.

Sixth Amendment

The right to a speedy trial. Unless you’ve been living in a cave, you already know that this has been absent. Upon getting arrested, one could expect to sit in jail for an undetermined amount of time, with no courtdate. Why? Because the courts shutdown. While this is starting to change, it doesn’t change the fact that this right may had potentially been violated. Of course, this is just another cog in the political wheel.

What we have seen is nothing less than government operated terrorism on its people. Criminals are being released from jails/prisons over alleged COVID fears. However, people are being sent to jail simply for operating their own businesses. Places where facemasks are “mandatory,” don’t even care what you wear on your face. A person can walk aroumd with tissue paper on their face and have no problem.

From what I have seen, this os a game to strip citizens, using fear and false numbers, of their constitutional rights. The worst part of this, we are allowing it. When you really begin to dig into this, the contradictions become very apparant. This situation is no longer about protecting the people or preventing the spread of a virus, which has an approx 3% fatality rate globally. This is a war in which it is the government vs. the people.